Hello Michael.

10 Nov 02 13:43, you wrote to me:

 RR>> According to policy, the RC's chose the ZC.

 MG> You just contradicted yourself. The ZC /is/ an elected position. The
 MG> ZC's are elected by the RC's.

The RC's choose the ZC, thats different to an election.

 MG>>> Regional Coordinator. You place far too much faith in the FTSC as
 MG>>> an authority. They are (were) there to record what the *C's
 MG>>> decide to use, and for no other reason.

 RR>> Faith has nothing to do with it, read policy, its straight
 RR>> forward.

 MG> I think you read it only the way you want to read it. It's pretty clear
 MG> that you place your own interpretations on both policy and the FTSC.

 MG> Enjoy your ignorance... I won't bother arguing with you any more.

I have not placed interpretations. If you go back through my replies to you I
have quoted verbatim paragraphs from both Policy 4 and FTSC documents - not
my words there.

You have never answered any of those though with a query about
interpretation, you just continue on your own misguided ideas of what you
think happens and ignore the documents.

Much like your idea of how the FTSC works, which is completely wrong. Since
Carol has already answered your post of this and told you how it really works
I won't bother reiterating it.

Meanwhile enjoy your nodelist stuffing with your /10 node.

Cheers,
                Rick

... When your computer has a virus, Don't use chicken soup!

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5 - Debian/GNU